"Immediation is a technique more than it is a descriptor. It is what moves the event into another register. A politics of fabulation invariably accompanies it, a fabulation that resists organizing the telling of the event into the kind of consumable bite-sized description that would narrate it as a linear arc. The attempt is to become more attuned to the differences between those kinds of narratives that hold the event hostage and those that continue to breed openings. It’s not that these more normative narratives don’t enter the world: they do. Our task is to craft the conditions for events that resist this kind of telling, opting instead for a fabulation that undermines the very question of an event’s localization in a single place, activating not the truth of a myth framed by the collective, but its power of the false, as Deleuze might say—the power of the event to claim its falsification from itself. With the power of the false, time begins to err, undermining the imposition of continuity. Time as metric is disrupted, but not just that: time folds."
"Fabulation tells in a way that moves with time’s unweaving. Sensitive to the squeaks of language, to language at the edge of comprehension, fabulation is moved less by the necessity to explain the event, than by the realization, always come to anew, that telling is a form of liveness completely connected to the event’s own emergence. This telling cannot be separated out from how its narration shifts the terms of the event. Stories become intensive magnitudes rather than extensive place-holders. They tell at the limit of what can be known, their work a falsifying of what constitutes the knowable. This falsification is not of the order of a simple untruth: the power of the false is never about the true or the false per se. It is about another kind of truth altogether, a truth of the event in its inevitable permutation. Fabulation speaks in the mouths of the many, its utterance collective. “An act of fabulation which would not be a return to myth but a production of collective utterances capable of raising misery to a strange positivity, the invention of a people” (Deleuze 1989: 222)."
“Fabulation is not an impersonal myth, but neither is it a personal fiction: it is a word in act, a speech-act through which the character never ceases to cross the boundary which would separate his private business from politics, and which itself produces collective utterances”
maybe it was not the coffee that captivated her, maybe it was the impossibility of drinking the coffee warm. it would seem that the disjunctive synthesis moves with appetite: one does not desire or want a particular coffee, coffee makes movement even without cofffee or whatever its state. in other words, the quality of coffee, warm and cold, moves with a more than of coffee.
i prefer not to drink my coffee warm when it is hot, but i could. did you drink your coffee warm? that's quite different, no?
warm and cold, appetites moves; it is just when the appetite does not emerge that there starts to be the need to fill it in differently. does he care? we are in Italy, everyone cares for the coffee? is there something else going on? does he not love you anymore?
the coffee waits, but in Italy no one drinks it cold.